I can’t say why some of Richard Thornton’s revisionist claims are cycling back around again, but I’ve come across a couple of web postings related to a 2011 article Thornton published claiming that the Irish had a colony in South Carolina, and he later described the people of this colony as “hybrid Gaelic” people who had mated with Native Americans and produced biracial offspring. Yes, he actually describes them as racial hybrids.

Thornton, you will recall, is the leading advocate of the evidence-free claim that the Maya had a mining colony in Georgia.

In support of his analysis, Thornton describes the work of People of One Fire, a Native American research group that Thornton fails to inform readers he works with as an editor. He is not an unbiased observer of their work. Worse, apparently quite a few members of the People of One Fire group, comprised largely of Creeks, have adopted a Creek fundamentalist point of view designed to deny that the Cherokee played a role in Georgia history before the contact period. Scholars generally believe that the Cherokee migrated from the north sometime after 1000 CE; Creek fundamentalists support a date after 1400 or 1500 in order to support the view that all of the pre-Columbian mounds and ruins in the area are Creek and nothing is Cherokee. It is an open question, with different arguments for different dates. I don’t know how any of it squares with Thorton’s claims that the area’s ruins are Mayan except that any advocacy of a non-Cherokee origin helps support Creek goals in a perceived rivalry with the Cherokee. (The two groups fought a war in the 1700s that the Creek lost, and in the War of 1812 the Cherokee and Creek took opposite sides. You will recall, too, that Thornton feels the Cherokee are in a conspiracy with the U.S. government to suppress his work.) So anyway, People of One Fire claims to have analyzed every Spanish text explorers ever wrote about the American South and to have “translated” every mangled Native name and title as Creek or some other area tribe’s language. They concluded that no words were Cherokee. But they decided that Peter Martyr d’Anghiera’s reference to a North Carolina area called “Duhare” (De orbe novo7.2 and 3.), typically considered to refer to the Cape Fear Indians, was a Gaelic word since they could relate it to no Native American language. Now, mind you that Peter Martyr was writing in Latin from reports composed in Spanish of attempts to render in Roman letters Native words often heard secondhand through translators. Worse, some of the peoples the Spanish met later merged with other tribes or died out, leaving behind nothing of their pre-contact languages. The claim, specifically, is that “Duhare” originates in one of two ways: as “Place of Clan Hare” or as “du’hÉir,” meaning “place of the Irish.”

I am not aware of a Clan Hare, though there is an O’Hare or O’Hair family whose name derives from O’hÉir, which would be the same root as the second proposed etymology for Duhare.

But here’s the rub: People of One Fire and Richard Thornton put enormous weight on Peter Martyr’s third-hand place name being phonetically accurate enough to translate from Gaelic to English. Yet “Duhare” is an Anglicization of his original Latin text, made by later translators, beginning with Gomara, who abridged and translated Peter Martyr for Historia de las Indias (ch. 43), where he translates the word as “Duhare.” Which is fine, of course, but it’s not precisely what Peter Martyr wrote in his three mentions of the name. In the original Latin text of De orbe novo7.3 he referred to the giant chief Datha “in provincia Duharae,” which, given standard Latin first declension forms, gives us the province of “Duhara” in the nominative. Yet back in 7.2, he gives “Duhare” as an accusative, and then gives the name again as “Duharhe.” Despite these varying forms, there is one constant: All three forms clearly imply that the final vowel was meant to be pronounced, as is standard in Latin. Only an Anglicized version would drop the pronunciation of the final vowel. If we pronounce the name according to Latin rules (“Doo-AH-ray”), or (assuming the word form was delivered in the Spanish explorers’ own language) historical Spanish pronunciation (“Doo-HAH-ray”), the similarities to the Gaelic fade. The “Éir” is meant to be pronounced “Ire,” as in Ireland, and doesn’t reconcile with the Latin or Spanish pronunciation of “ar” without special pleading that renders any argument from accuracy moot. The proposed Gaelic original also clearly has no terminal vowel, so why should we accept this identification and no other? If the argument comes from accuracy, this must fail.

But that’s not all. Peter Martyr wrote that the people of Duhare were “white” and possessed of a chief named Datha who was a “giant.” Thornton sees his name as the Gaelic word for “painted.” Further, the Duhare made “cheese” from deer milk gotten from domesticated deer herds, so Thornton connects this to the Scots-Gaelic folktales of reindeer herding. Therefore, the Duhare people must be Irish!

There is no archaeological evidence of domestication of deer in South Carolina in the time period under discussion, nor is there any evidence of a dairy industry. (Indeed, most Native Americans are lactose intolerant and therefore “hybrid” Irish 500 years after colonization would have a hard time surviving on cheese.) There is no evidence of imported reindeer either. Peter, or more accurately his two sources, Ayllon and Chicora, were likely reporting a distorted story of a tribe that survived in large measure on deer hunting. There is a small chance that Peter might have been right, since he stated that the Duhare locked fawns in their houses so that the mothers would come back each evening to see them—a far cry from the reindeer-herding lifestyle of the ancient Scots a thousand years earlier.

“Datha” does not exactly mean “painted” in Gaelic. The word “dath” means “color,” “stain,” or “dye,” and is related to the verb “dath,” “to stain.” The word “datha” is the past participle of “dath” and means “colored,” “stained,” or “tinged.” However, “dathan” could refer to paint, in the sense of a color used to tinging. But given the broad tolerance we’re asked to accept for the accuracy of “Duhare,” I can’t see how we can distinguish “Datha” from similar-sounding words like “Datan” (“foster-father”), “Data” (“handsome”), or “Dathag” (“parasitic worm”).

Thornton tries to strengthen the connection by asserting that Peter said Datha “covered his skin with pigments or tattoos,” but there is nothing in Peter about that. He only says that Datha was “gigantic,” had a tall wife, traveled in a litter, and had a stone palace.

That leaves only the whiteness of their skins, to which Thornton adds that they had full beards unlike Native Americans, whom he accuses of having patchy facial hair. To take the latter first, Thornton is again making up things not in the text: Peter speaks nothing of Duhare beards, noting only that the people had long brown hair. As to skin color, Peter never implied they were of the same race as the Spaniards (indeed, such concepts of color-based race had yet to fully form); his use of color is relative, describing various tribes in shades ranging from white to light brown to dark brown to black—all for a race English writers deemed “red”! Peter only meant that they were lighter than surrounding peoples.

Specifically, Peter uses the word “candidos,” to describe their skin. This word means “pale,” “light colored,” “fair,” or “bright.” In this sense it gained the secondary meaning of “brilliantly white” because it was the word for specially-cleaned Roman togas. It is distinct from “albus,” the typical word for “white” and the one I find used to describe Europeans in old books of scientific racism, as in Linnaeus’ four races: Europeus albus, Asiaticus luridus, Americanus rufus, and Afer niger, all named for colors. In short, Peter meant that the Duhare were paler in complexion than their neighbors, not that they were Caucasian.One final fun fact: After Gomara adapted Peter Martyr for his Historia, a seventeenth-century French translation of Gomara was made that completely mangled the story, turning the deer into women and stating that the Duhare people ate cheese made from breast milk!

According to Richard the people from Wikipedia and the Archaeology Professors at UGA are also conspiring against him.

Reply

The Other J.

9/6/2013 11:04:57 am

"The “Éir” is meant to be pronounced “Ire,” as in Ireland"

Actually, it's pronounced more like 'Ayre'; the "Ire" sound is the Anglicization of the 'ei,' which has a long 'I' sound in many (most?) Germanic languages. That's where some alternative historians (Tsarion) try to link the Irish to ancient Aryans -- through the sound.

Irish is not a very phonetic language, and most of what you'll find today in a textbook was only standardized in the past 100 years or so (really since around WWII). You'll still find variant spellings and vocabulary for the same objects or concepts between Derry, Galway, Cork. Which is to say the definition of any older word or meaning that someone unfamiliar with the language tried to look up in a standard text might be tenuous; depending on the era and the dialect, the word may be spelled differently enough to make a difference, or be a different word all together.

Thornton and People of One Fire might have had better luck running with Datha instead of Duhare. "Datha" at least seems to have a close echo in Daithi, (DAh-hee), which is Gaelic for David.

I'm not conversant enough with the language to know what words might fit the bill, but if you're taking the Irish pronunciation of "th" in Datha, a similar sound could also be produced by a -dh or -gh; so a word like 'déidhe' (dual) or 'teidhe' (whim) or 'téigh' (warm or reach) might sound similar or the same to a non-native speaker. None of those words really sound like Daithi, but they might to someone who's just reading and piecing their own pronunciations together without ever hearing the language spoken. (And again, there's no way of really knowing how a lost Irish tribe pronounced their dialect of Gaelic 1000 years ago.)

Sorry, I was going for "Ayre"; perhaps were pronounce Ireland slightly differently? I've always pronounced it "Ay-er-land." The joy of pronunciation.

You're absolutely right that there is no way to know how Gaelic was pronounced 1,000 years ago. Heck, ENGLISH wasn't pronounced like English 1,000 years go--before the Great Vowel Shift (which also contributes to the above problem of spelling vs. pronunciation).

All of which is a long way of saying that the claim that words that are spelled sort of similar are necessarily related is a very weak one.

Reply

Dave Lewis

9/6/2013 04:09:38 pm

The citation of false cognates seems to be a favorite device of alternative historians.

A few years ago I started reading an ebook by Acharya S. As soon as she said that Jesus and Krishna were the same character because Krishna and Christ sound similar, I deleted the ebook and moved on to something more believable like Harry Potter.

Dave Lewis

Reply

Shane Sullivan

9/6/2013 06:18:54 pm

That's cool, let me try.

The word "anonymous" sort of sounds like "animosh," which means "dog" in Ojibwe; therefore, dogs settled America, and Europe, and Lemuria.

Thornton claims that the Irish in SC conveniently "forgot" how to make such tools because the nearest metal deposits were too far to easily reach. This, therefore, is why there is no trace of them archaeologically, since they abandoned every aspect of their culture except for a handful of Gaelic words, dairy farming, and, of course, their white genes.

Reply

Coridan Miller

9/7/2013 01:42:06 am

Interesting, seeing as the 17th century colonials were quite good at finding bog iron all over the Atlantic coast. And the skraelings through trade/raiding at least got some fish hooks and a few other tidbits from the Norse.

The Other J.

9/7/2013 02:56:46 am

Ugly, ugly facts! Hell, I'd be impressed by something less metallic, like remnants of a thatched-roof dwelling. Did they also forget how to make those when they got to South Carolina? Because they were still making them in Erin back around the same time they were meant to be in South Cackalacky. And they left all kinds of remains in their dwellings, enough that archaeologists can recreate them to a reasonable degree. Where are the dwellings, Mr. Thornton?

Actually, serious question: Is Thornton or anyone else trying to identify any odd stone structures in South Carolina as obviously Celtic dolmen structures? Because that seems like the obvious next step -- the Kilclooney of Columbia, the Poulnabrone of Pickens County. Not that Native Americans never made any stone structures, but I've seen others discount their ability to deliberately place a rock and claim it had to be Celts.

Thane

9/7/2013 04:21:39 am

@The Other J.

>>Not that Native Americans never made any stone structures, but I've seen others discount their ability to deliberately place a rock and claim it had to be Celts<<

That sort of reminds me of the original Ghostbusters movie wherein our heroes descend into the archives of the NY Public library and encounter a stack of books.

The iron thing is something I brought up with Alice Kehoe when she emailed me a few months ago, telling me she had some faith in the lunatic hypothesis that the Athabaskan languages entered the Americas after the Western Xia dynasty was conquered by the Mongols, causing the leadership to flee across the sea. She didn't really have an answer as to why they apparently stopped using iron.

I think a lot of these fringe folks have a poor understanding of iron-working, to say the least.

Bill

9/7/2013 12:34:04 pm

@The Other J

Thornton and members of People of One Fire are actively searching for stone structures that they can attribute to the Mayans, Europeans, and the Creek. They have also made it clear that the Creek, Seminole and the evil Cherokee don't understand their "real" history. Fortunately Thornton and his fellow "average people" are making their research available to everyone online at Examiner.com.

Dave Lewis

9/7/2013 04:37:15 pm

Anybody notice that since Tara(ntula) quit posting here all we do is agree with each other?

Dave Lewis

Reply

Gunn

9/8/2013 04:14:14 am

Well, that can change at any time.

Seriously, though, I want to bring something up, on-subject. The mention of iron, and bog iron. Some of the evidence from Newfoundland from 1,000 AD include iron produced locally, unless I am mistaken. A lot has been discussed here in these blogs about copper, but not much about iron. Minnesota has an impressive iron range.

I would like to ask readers of this blog to look at this iron object, if you haven't already done so. I very honestly want to know what the object is. It apparently had a purpose. There are a few clues. First of all, it is hand-portable, and could easily be converted into a stone-shattering war club. But look closer, please. It was formed through heating and then hand tooling. There is a definite tool impression, which indicates that it was struck with a tool-die while still hot. What is the shape for? What else could this item be? What period is it from? Somebody once made it for a purpose.

I found it more than a foot underground after a storm felled a tree, not more than a stone-throw from where Jason's Waterloo was found.

A foot underground, you say. Unless you have good reasons for believing that it has moved a lot since its original deposition, I'm sceptical that it is a genuine medieval artifact.

Only Me

9/8/2013 08:08:08 am

It's just an offshoot of his obsession with the Heavenly Stone of Minnesota.

However, I'm still waiting to see if Tara has discovered anything about it, since she offered to help in determining what it is.

The Other J.

9/8/2013 09:35:20 am

I may regret asking this, but...

Why couldn't that have been cold-forged?

Paul Cargile

9/9/2013 04:53:04 am

Broken part of a 20th century farming implement?

Gunn

9/9/2013 10:38:19 am

Cold-forged, The Other J.? I didn't consider that because the pressure required would be so great, also probably requiring immense machinery. I once worked at a press-forge, where I had to arm-deliver (upwards) chunks of red-hot metal to be stamped into universal joints. The machine was immense and kept breaking down...broom time. I had to quit that job as the heat was tearing up my eyes. Once in a while, someone would point at me to indicate that a glove was on fire...or some such minor emergency.

Jeff

9/8/2015 03:03:31 pm

Hi, Mr. Colavito. Thornton cites Peter Martyr's book for the claim that the Duhare raised chickens. Do you find the same information in the book?

If so, did Indians north of Mexico possess chickens?

Reply

Frank Hannon

5/11/2017 11:14:12 am

The writings of Peter Martyr seem to be lacking a great deal in information about the Duhare. If the suggested stone carving links to the Dingle Peninsula in County Kerry Ireland are to be believed in any way then this may link the Duhare to present day natives in the Dingle area, who in common with others from County Kerry are known for their reticence in disclosure of any information about themselves. Ask any County Kerry farmer how many cows he has and he'll likely say "a few". Perhaps outsiders similarly knew nothing about the Duhare. Local natives may have asked "where did you guys come from anyway?" and got the answer "ah, shure not far, not far". The key question to find our about the Duhare is did they make alcohol. If evidence can be found that they did then that may be enough to connect to Ireland and may also to explain why they lost all their metal tools!

Reply

Jack

10/8/2017 01:01:38 am

The Cherokees in the Carolinas had stories about little people living underground. When Western Carolina University in Cullowhee, North Carolina was built, small-sized tunnels were found along with bones that were first assumed to belong to infants, except that their wisdom teeth were in place.

Bones of small humans were found elsewhere in the world. One species was called Homo Floresiensis. Now the Cherokee had 3 different different descriptions for the little people. Some were said to look like the Cherokee but smaller, some had bluish skin, and the third had reddish hair and were disliked by the blues.

The little people with Redish hair could be behind the legends of Leprechauns if Irish settlers saw them in the Carolinas and somehow brought word back to Ireland.

The "Indian mounds" in those areas are believe by some to be the result of the tunnel dirt being dumped. Also, in 1932 near Casper, Wyoming mummified of a little person was found by miners digging for gold. The mummy was displayed in a store front for a year and later sent to the Smithsonian to be analyzed. The mummy was never heard from again.

Reply

Leave a Reply.

Author

I'm an author and editor who has published on a range of topics, including archaeology, science, and horror fiction. There's more about me in the About Jason tab.